18 replies to this topic

[donald]

boycotting things was a big part of the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s!

in 1956 after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white person, civil rights leaders in Montgomery launcheda boycott of city buses, which MLKjr was a big supporter of.

But the boycotts were specific. they were targeted at businesses and institutions, not at other black citizens or people fighting with the civil rights movements.

The civil rights movements were born in the belly of the beast in the south. They had to do sit-ins, protests, marches, and boycotts in the places that were the most hostile towards them in order to be effective.

turning your back on places where injustices happen, doesn't make them go away and the civil rights movement's concentration on the exact areas where they were not wanted proved to be highly effective.

Fair enough, MLK was into boycotting, just not the whole state

[negicore]

Do I think boycotting is the way to do things? No I don't, because I do believe it hurts the wrong people.



This is what I was trying to tell my friend in Outernational, who were not warmly received @ the GBH show for expressing their Boycott support....

[Jacki O.]

boycotting things was a big part of the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s!

in 1956 after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white person, civil rights leaders in Montgomery launcheda boycott of city buses, which MLKjr was a big supporter of.

But the boycotts were specific. they were targeted at businesses and institutions, not at other black citizens or people fighting with the civil rights movements.

The civil rights movements were born in the belly of the beast in the south. They had to do sit-ins, protests, marches, and boycotts in the places that were the most hostile towards them in order to be effective.

turning your back on places where injustices happen, doesn't make them go away and the civil rights movement's concentration on the exact areas where they were not wanted proved to be highly effective.

Fair enough, MLK was into boycotting, just not the whole state

agreed. and i think that's the analogy Charlie is making, what if MLK was all "Fuck Alabama, im going to concentrate my efforts in New York or Washington DC" ??

instead he was all "Fuck Alabama, im gonna go down there and support the people who are fighting for their rights, im going to rile them up, im going to inspire them and help them!"

that's what we need more peeps doing in AZ. Come down and help us fight! Dont ignore us, that just gives more power to politicians who made these laws.

we need more art here. we need more sensible voices and less hate.

[Jacki O.]

i do think boycotts are effective if they are directed at the right targets.

boycotting an entire state because of laws that its citizens didnt even get a chance to vote on is ridiculous.

but those politicians got that power by being voted into office.....

so that raises the question about who voted for them, who supports them (financially - see my pearce finances thread!) and who they hob knob with and get endorsed by. boycotting those businesses and organizations will be far more effective than saying you're going to never come to Arizona.

people who say they are boycotting the state of arizona are just playing into the mainstream media's depiction of our state. they are not doing their research, they are not asking people in arizona how they feel. they are reading headlines and soundbytes and watching the colbert report and then saying FUCK AZ.

then they go smoke their cigarettes and drink their bud lite and not know that they are supporting Russell Pearce by buying products from companies that give that money to Political Action Groups and lobby organizations that then donate that money to Pearce's campaign, allowing him to craft the very laws that they deride our state for.